Are Canadians so fed up with Harper that all we ever talk about is a c

[Smallc]

The thing with the f35 is that it will be a superior fighter when it comes out and will be for quite sometime.

That's true, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost.

[ZenOps]

That can be seen with Libya. The F-35 is meant for first strikes to knock out air and ground defences. Because we're so far away from most of the world, first strike is something we can't do anyway, because by the time we've got there, someone closer (usually the US) has already struck first.

It doesn't really matter. Canada doesn't have an aircraft carrier so we have to rent out spots on the Enterprise.

The US will have about 2 thousand F-35s and a handful of not for sale outside the US F-22s (superior to the F-35) So... Its not like we have any control over where we use these planes outside of Canada. The planes go - where the aircraft carrier goes, and that means wherever the US says for them to go.

If Canada wanted to help defend Britian in a world war, but the Enterprise was in North Korea because the US said it was a higher priority, guess where our planes would be... They would be in North Korea.

[WWWTT]

I'm predicting you're not here much longer.

Yes I have heard a similar comment about 50 of my comments ago.And I think it was from you.

So in fact predicting a member getting yanked off this site seems to be a favorite topic for you.

How are the predictions coming buddy?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

There is a place for people like him,though....

Bedwetter.ca!!!!(rabble.ca)

This is actually one of your better posts here.

I'm going to print this one out and pin it up over my bed to remind me of the powerfull,thought provoking comments that you create!

Do you know a good publisher?

WWWTT

[Scotty]

and over 60% of canadians agree with you, we don't need the F35...

That would be a bunch of people who don't know how to fly and don't know anything about fighter aircraft, right? The people who do, ie, the air force, have a different opinion.

[ToadBrother]

That would be a bunch of people who don't know how to fly and don't know anything about fighter aircraft, right? The people who do, ie, the air force, have a different opinion.

Couldn't we say the same thing about the constitutional nature of coalitions and contempt motions, and yet Tories around here every day spend a good many electrons telling us how voters feel about those.

[Scotty]

Couldn't we say the same thing about the constitutional nature of coalitions and contempt motions, and yet Tories around here every day spend a good many electrons telling us how voters feel about those.

I don't think you need years of training to be able to observe how the public feels about something.

Differentiating between various high tech fighter planes, on the other hand, requires a somewhat higher level of insight.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think you need years of training to be able to observe how the public feels about something.

But it certainly needs some familiarity with the constitution to accurately understand something. "Feelings" hardly seem a rational way to make decisions.

Differentiating between various high tech fighter planes, on the other hand, requires a somewhat higher level of insight.

So what are you trying to say? That "feelings" are okay as a means of deciding on whether a constitutional form of government is right or wrong, but you need years of training to decide whether a large expenditure on fighter craft is right or wrong?

Surely you must see there's a severe flaw with your logic.

The alternative explanation is that the voter probably doesn't have the specialist knowledge to make constitutional or military decisions, and yet, at the end of the day, in both cases, the voter has to decide whether to back a party that is for or against. Pleading that voters are too ignorant to make decisions on fighter planes but can be irrational on coalitions strikes me as, well, a little hypocritical.

[Scotty]

The alternative explanation is that the voter probably doesn't have the specialist knowledge to make constitutional or military decisions, and yet, at the end of the day, in both cases, the voter has to decide whether to back a party that is for or against. Pleading that voters are too ignorant to make decisions on fighter planes but can be irrational on coalitions strikes me as, well, a little hypocritical.

I think that as a reasonably thoughtful, intelligent person who's observed government and elections throughout the world for twenty five years I can offer up a reasonably insightful opinion as to the merits of parliamentary democracy. I have no such knowledge about the F-35 and neither do you. My opinion on its merits vs some other fighter plane are thus largely without value.

I don't doubt the great herd makes decisions about things they know virtually nothing about all the time. I'm not arguing that X number of the population might now be opposed to buying the F-35. I'm simply saying I have no respect for their largely ignorant opinions.

[WWWTT]

That would be a bunch of people who don't know how to fly and don't know anything about fighter aircraft, right? The people who do, ie, the air force, have a different opinion.

So does this mean that the military dictates what Canadian policy should be and where tax dollars are spent?

They have an opinion with great merit and it stops there.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

They have an opinion with great merit and it stops there.

Right, and you have an opinion with no merit that stops here!

[WWWTT]

Right, and you have an opinion with no merit that stops here!

And this comes from someone who can never win an argument with me,to only be reduced to trolling.

Very good buddy

How many cf-18 shot down in combat again?

WWWTT

[M.Dancer]

And this comes from someone who can never win an argument with me,to only be reduced to trolling.

Was that the argument where you said the CF-18 had no machine guns?

:lol:

[Scotty]

So does this mean that the military dictates what Canadian policy should be and where tax dollars are spent?

They have an opinion with great merit and it stops there.

WWWTT

You ask the experts what they need and then, if possible, give it to them.

You might not accept their advice blindly, but you certainly shouldn't reject it because a bunch of ignorant people stirred up by a little demagoguery in headlines say you should.

[WWWTT]

Was that the argument where you said the CF-18 had no machine guns?

:lol:

Do you know what the definition of an argument is?

When did I contest this?

Now run along buddy your boring!

WWWTT

Edited March 29, 2011 by WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

The use of the word "buddy" is incredible...

This poster uses it almost as much as Mr. Harper uses the word "coalition"...

[M.Dancer]

Do you know what the definition of an argument is?

When did I contest this?

Now run along buddy your boring!

WWWTT

Oh I do know the definition....

Ok here is another example of someone completely ignorant(ad Hom.) and who does not use their mind before they talk,nothing personal treehuger but you wrote this not me.

Ok so tell me how many of these cf-18 have bein shot down? (irrelevancy)

In fact with the track record this plane has yes I would like to be in one!

Ok now I am not a pilot but the plane used now is only a hull for the more important electronics and weapons. (overstatement) The plane itself I believe has no machine guns,the teeth are missles and bombs to have all the bite.(factual error)

Not just that eletronics are always advancing at an alarming rate.

Even if we do get these new raptor jets there will be new advanced tech. coming out in a few years that will have to be retrofitted into them at additional costs.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You ask the experts what they need and then, if possible, give it to them.

You might not accept their advice blindly, but you certainly shouldn't reject it because a bunch of ignorant people stirred up by a little demagoguery in headlines say you should.

What someone needs and what someone wants are two different things.

Do I need a Rolls Royce to drive to work?Or will the bus be sufficient?

Do you understand what I am getting at or are you more focused on trivial matters.

If the government finaly gets back to focusing to needs as opposed to wants maybe then and only then will we get this deficit/debt problem into check!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Oh I do know the definition....

Exactly.

Thanks buddy

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That would be a bunch of people who don't know how to fly and don't know anything about fighter aircraft, right? The people who do, ie, the air force, have a different opinion.

Oh and I guess all of the staff members for all the MPs and advisers have absolutely no clue of where to spend your hard earned tax dollars.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

How many cf-18 shot down in combat again?

I already provided you with information on CF-18 losses. Nobody here implied that any were "shot down" except you as part of some irrelevant argument against procuring new aircraft. It's like asking how many were captured by aliens.

[WWWTT]

I already provided you with information on CF-18 losses. Nobody here implied that any were "shot down" except you as part of some irrelevant argument against procuring new aircraft. It's like asking how many were captured by aliens.

Really!Not relevant!Then why upgrade to f-35 when the cf-18 has a perfect combat role record!

Actually if we were in threat of space alliens then maybe this new jet would have a roll!

WWWTT

[M.Dancer]

Really!Not relevant!Then why upgrade to f-35 when the cf-18 has a perfect combat role record!

Actually if we were in threat of space alliens then maybe this new jet would have a roll!

WWWTT

And the Hawker Hurricane has never been downed by a air to air missile so to use your idiotic logic we should consider those.

Not withsatnding your factual errors (yet again!) the F-18 does not have a perfect combat record....bombs have missed and at least 2 were lost in combat (shot down)

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Plus more could be built if there suddenly came a pressing need for more 5th generation air superiority fighters. It's not as if the designs have been burned and the production facilities dismantled.

I stand corrected on the production numbers, but don't expect them to build any more Raptors once the next couple are delivered because that is it. The most expensive piece of junk ever bought by the USAF. There is a damned good reason they stopped production, it sure wasn't because they were making too much money on the damned things. That said, I am sure there is something better hiding in the wings somewhere.

The F35 is the next evolution of the fighter aircraft. It covers all the American requirements for all branches of service. It is their platform of choice. The production run as planned will reduce the cost per plane for later deliveries. The funny thing is that I agree with the guy that said we should develop something on our own and retain the design costs within the nation.

[WWWTT]

And the Hawker Hurricane has never been downed by a air to air missile so to use your idiotic logic we should consider those.

Not withsatnding your factual errors (yet again!) the F-18 does not have a perfect combat record....bombs have missed and at least 2 were lost in combat (shot down)

Ok now we are getting somewhere.

I believe the loses of these two planes are acceptable.

However the bombs missing their targets I am not sure about.

Aswell there is another fact to consider.

And that is who is invading Canada.Is that what these planes are for?To deter a possible invasion from other countries?

There is a cost to being involved in all these foreign campaigns.Was Canadas foriegn policy a catalyst for all these problems we are currently engaged in?I do not believe so.

So why are we helping everyone else out.

When Canada developed the Avrow Arrow did the US or European countries come rushing to Canadas doorstep with purchase orders for what was then one of the most advanced in its field?

Oh I just noticed,there is a difference between cf-18 and f-18,just can't let it go ey.

WWWTT